ILNews

7th Circuit affirms attorney's fees award under Lanham Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding a plaintiff’s actions frivolous, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today has affirmed a District Court’s grant of attorney’s fees to a company that successfully defended itself after selling lamps to the plaintiff home health care provider. The 7th Circuit also granted the defendant’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to Rule 38 of the appellate rules.

In Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC No. 10-2327, appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, the 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $72,747. The award was based on 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which allows attorney’s fees to be awarded to prevailing parties in Lanham Act suits, but only in “exceptional cases.”

However, Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. disagreed that this was an “exceptional case.” The 7th Circuit opinion, written by Judge Richard A. Posner, explained that while the other circuits have applied different tests to define what is an “exceptional case,” the panel on this case considered what the 7th Circuit has found in past opinions, including In Door Systems, Inc. v. Pro-Line Door Systems, Inc., 126 F.3d 1028, 1031 (7th Cir. 1997).

“We said that the test was whether the conduct of the party from which the payment of attorney’s fees was sought had been ‘oppressive,’ and that ‘whether the plaintiff’s suit was oppressive’ turned on whether the suit ‘was something that might be described not just as a losing suit but as a suit that had elements of an abuse of process, whether or not it had all the elements of the tort.’ But that, we said, ‘would not be the right question if the plaintiff had prevailed and was seeking the award of attorney’s fees. In such a case the focus would be on whether the defendant had lacked a solid justification for the defense or had put the plaintiff to an unreasonable expense in suing,’” Judge Posner wrote.

The section above was in response to whether a case was “exceptional” in terms of the awarding of attorney’s fees under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Judge Posner wrote.

However, fees in that case were also sought under the Lanham Act, and the court found that the test of whether a case is “exceptional,” he wrote, “is the same under both statutes, 'oppressive' in the sense expounded in Door Systems. Id. at 1031-32.”

In later cases, he wrote, the 7th Circuit further defined “exceptional” cases to be those that “lacked merit, had elements of an abuse of process claim, and plaintiff’s conduct in the litigation unreasonably increased the cost of defending against the suit;” cases that included “vexatious litigation conduct;” and a case could be found to be exceptional for reasons “'based solely on the weakness’ of the plaintiff’s claims.”

What is puzzling, he wrote, is that there are so many different definitions of “exceptional,” something he attributed to “Circuit drift,” where some circuits see more of these types of cases than others.

In this case, Judge Posner wrote the acts of Nightingale were “frivolous,” and even though Nightingale’s claims were regarding the intended use of the lamps they purchased from Anodyne, “the district judge found that Nightingale had made the claim in an attempt to coerce a price reduction from Anodyne.”

“To bring a frivolous claim in order to obtain an advantage unrelated to obtaining a favorable judgment is to commit an abuse of process,” Judge Posner wrote.

In addition to affirming the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees, the 7th Circuit also granted Anodyne’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to Rule 38 of the appellate rules.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT